Physician Health Series, Part 3: Physician Mental Health.

This article is the third of 3 articles in a series about managing the care of physicians as patients. In part 1, the authors reviewed unique characteristics of physicians as patients with some general guidance for how to approach their care. Part 2 highlighted role clarity for the treating physician with discussion of the physical and cognitive issues that commonly arise when treating physician-patients along with licensure issues and reporting requirements. This final installment will focus on physician mental health and work-related stress.

Quality Assessment of a Virtual Post Offer Placement Assessment in Employee Occupational Health Services.

OBJECTIVE: The rise in remote work and increased access to technology allows opportunity for virtual onboarding. The aim of this project was to assess the quality of virtual onboarding versus the traditional in-person onboarding. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team utilized a survey to evaluate staff and new hire candidate satisfaction with the in-person versus virtual Post Offer Placement Assessment (POPA). RESULTS: The virtual POPA process maintained a high-level of quality and satisfaction among new hire healthcare candidates compared to in-person onboarding, with shorter appointment times. Employee Occupational Health Services (EOHS) staff and new hire candidates reported a preference for the virtual POPA process over traditional in-person onboarding. CONCLUSIONS: The virtual POPA option reduced the length of appointments and maintained satisfaction and quality of service.

Part Two: Managing Physicians as Patients and Their Safe Return to Work.

This second installment in a 3-part series about physicians as patients explores challenges in communication and role definition while managing their care and safe return to work. In the first article of the series, authors reviewed unique characteristics that make physicians different as patients, with some general guidance about how to approach their care. Although most treating physicians receive little occupational training, health issues commonly have an impact on work with imperative to address work issues promptly for best outcome. This paper demystifies the challenge of managing work status and discusses navigating common physical and cognitive issues while maintaining role clarity. The treating clinician reading this paper will learn to avoid common pitfalls and be better equipped to provide initial assessments and interventions to keep physicians working safely, keeping in mind licensure issues and reporting requirements. Part Three of the series will focus on the most common mental health issues seen in physicians.

Physician Health Series Part One: Characteristics of Physicians as Patients.

This is the first article of a 3-part series about physician health. In this installment, we outline the unique characteristics of physicians as patients, challenges and opportunities presented by physician-patients, and recommendations for treating physicians. Future articles will delve into role clarity, occupational considerations, mental health, and interactions with third parties such as the physician's employer or licensing board. Ultimately, this series will help treating clinicians provide the best care to their physician-patients and successfully navigate the unique challenges that may arise, especially when the diagnosis may have an impact on their ability to practice medicine.

Outcomes From a Physician Health Center.

This retrospective cohort study describes the population of physicians seeking medical evaluation in a dedicated physician health center and identifies factors associated with needing practice restrictions. Participants had an initial evaluation between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2022. We report personal and professional demographics and types of medical conditions in this cohort. An ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with occupational outcomes. Physicians in a wide variety of specialties from 34 different states presented for evaluation of diverse medical problems. More than half of the participants presented with occupational concerns. The presence of a neurologic or psychiatric illness were the only factors associated with temporary or permanent restrictions. Physicians with medical conditions impacting their ability to practice have a professional obligation to obtain a thorough, objective medical evaluation. Such evaluations should support and protect patients, employers, and the physicians themselves.

Potential reduction of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms via vaccination.

The objective of this observational study is to determine whether vaccination for SARS-CoV-2 alters the clinical presentation of post-COVID conditions (PCC). Self-reported data provided by patients requesting care for PCC at the Mayo Clinic were analyzed to assess for a relationship between vaccination status prior to COVID infection and PCC symptoms. In all, 477 subjects were included in this study. In total, 245 (51.4%) were vaccinated. Vaccinated subjects with PCC reported less abdominal pain, anosmia, parosmia, chest pain/tightness, dizziness, numbness/tingling, dyspnea, spells/tremors, and weakness. For hospitalized patients who developed PCC, vaccinated patients reported less chest pain, cough, dizziness, and dyspnea. After applying Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons, decreased abdominal pain remained significant. We conclude that vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 may reduce the symptoms of PCC, leading to improved morbidity and function. Further studies on the impact of vaccination on PCC and recovery are needed.

Hybrid Immunity Provides Protective Advantage Over Vaccination or Prior Remote Coronavirus Disease 2019 Alone.

Background: The protective efficacy of prior coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with or without vaccination remains unknown. This study sought to understand if 2 or more messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine doses provide additional protection in patients with prior infection, or if infection alone provides comparable protection. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the risk of COVID-19 from 16 December 2020 through 15 March 2022, among vaccinated and unvaccinated patients of all ages with and without prior infection. A Simon-Makuch hazard plot illustrated the incidence of COVID-19 between groups. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the association of demographics, prior infection, and vaccination status with new infection. Results: Among 101 941 individuals with at least 1 COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction test prior to 15 March 2022, 72 361 (71.0%) received mRNA vaccination and 5957 (5.8%) were previously infected. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 was substantially higher throughout the study period for those previously uninfected and unvaccinated, and lowest for those previously infected and vaccinated. After accounting for age, sex, and the interaction between vaccination and prior infection, a reduction in reinfection risk was noted during the Omicron and pre-Omicron phases of 26% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%-41%; P = .0065) to 36% (95% CI, 10%-54%; P = .0108), respectively, among previously infected and vaccinated individuals, compared to previously infected subjects without vaccination. Conclusions: Vaccination was associated with lower risk of COVID-19, including in those with prior infection. Vaccination should be encouraged for all including those with prior infection, especially as new variants emerge and variant-specific booster vaccines become available.

Early Experience With an Occupational JYNNEOS ( Orthopoxvirus ) Vaccination Program.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study is to identify lessons learned implementing JYNNEOS vaccination for laboratory workers exposed to orthopoxviruses such as mpox. METHODS: Workers at risk of laboratory exposure were offered vaccine in a carefully planned occupational health program. Vaccine was procured from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Drug Service, which has special requirements. Reasons for accepting or declining vaccine and adverse effects were obtained by survey. RESULTS: Most workers accepted JYNNEOS, and occupational risk was the most commonly cited reason for acceptance. Most experienced mild local adverse effects. The administrative requirements of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Drug Service are documented. CONCLUSIONS: Occupational health programs caring for laboratory workers handling unusual biological agents require careful planning and coordination to facilitate access to vaccines that are not commercially available, anticipate and mitigate barriers to vaccination, and comply with special Centers for Disease Control and Prevention requirements.

Who is getting boosted? Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine booster uptake among health care workers.

COVID-19 vaccination remains one of the most effective tools to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Unfortunately, vaccine hesitancy has limited primary vaccination and booster uptake among the general population and HCWs. To gain a better understanding of factors associated with booster vaccine uptake, we analyzed COVID-19 vaccine booster rates among HCWs and identified risk factors associated with nonacceptance. Of the 62,387 HCWs included in our analysis, the overall booster uptake rate was 64.8%. Older age, Non-Hispanic White racial group, early initial vaccine uptake and longer duration of employment were associated with higher booster uptake. Significant differences were observed between different job categories. This persistence of vaccine hesitancy and disparities in COVID-19 booster uptake among HCWs, almost 2 years after the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccination, call for further efforts to increase vaccine confidence among HCWs and the general population in light of the continued need for further COVID-19 protection.

Higher Cell-Mediated Immune Responses in Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease on Anti-TNF Therapy After COVID-19 Vaccination.

BACKGROUND: Some patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) on immunosuppressive therapies may have a blunted response to certain vaccines, including the messenger RNA (mRNA) coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines. However, few studies have evaluated the cell-mediated immune response (CMIR), which is critical to host defense after COVID-19 infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the humoral immune response and CMIR after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in patients with IBD. METHODS: This prospective study (HERCULES [HumoRal and CellULar initial and Sustained immunogenicity in patients with IBD] study) evaluated humoral immune response and CMIR after completion of 2 doses of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in 158 IBD patients and 20 healthy control (HC) subjects. The primary outcome was the CMIR to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in patients with IBD. The secondary outcomes were a comparison of (1) the CMIR in patients with IBD and HC subjects, (2) CMIR and humoral immune response in all participants, and (3) correlation between CMIR and humoral immune response. RESULTS: The majority (89%) of patients with IBD developed a CMIR, which was not different vs HC subjects (94%) (P = .6667). There was no significant difference (P = .5488) in CMIR between immunocompetent (median 255 [interquartile range, 146-958] spike T cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells) and immunosuppressed patients (median 377 [interquartile range, 123-1440]). There was no correlation between humoral and cell-mediated immunity after vaccination (P = .5215). In univariable analysis, anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy was associated with a higher CMIRs (P = .02) and confirmed in a multivariable model (P = .02). No other variables were associated with CMIR. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients with IBD achieved CMIR to a COVID-19 vaccine. Future studies are needed evaluating sustained CMIR and clinical outcomes.

Antibody and T cell responses to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines in patients with inflammatory bowel disease do not correlate. Most patients with inflammatory bowel disease mount a T cell response despite being on biologic therapies, those on anti-tumor necrosis factor may have a higher T cell response. Anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy has been associated with a lower antibody response to coronavirus disease 2019 vaccines, but the T cell response is augmented.

Coworkers are more likely than patients to transmit SARS-CoV-2 infection to healthcare personnel.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the impact of occupational exposures to SARS-CoV-2 positive patients and SARS-CoV-2 positive coworkers, by comparing the frequency of occupational exposure incidents and the rate of healthcare personnel (HCP) who developed a positive PCR test for SARS-COV-2 after occupational exposure to the two different types of infectious individuals. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all confirmed higher risk occupational exposure incidents that occurred in HCP from 20 March 2020 to 31 December 2020 at a large multisite US academic medical centre. Comparisons between groups for source type were performed using unpaired Student's t-test for continuous variables and the χ2 test for categorical variables, regression analysis was conducted to assess the associations between source type and risk of positive COVID-19 test after occupational exposure. RESULTS: In total, 2253 confirmed medium or high-risk occupational exposures occurred during the study period. 57% were exposures from coworker sources. Each source individual exposed a mean of 2.6 (95% CI 2.3 to 2.9) HCP; during postexposure surveillance, 4.5% of exposed HCP tested positive within 14 days. A coworker source on average exposed 2.2 (95% CI 2.01 to 2.4) other HCP and infected 0.14 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.17) HCP, while patient sources exposed a mean of 3.4 (95% CI 2.6 to 4.2) HCP but only infected 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11) HCP. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that exposure to a coworker source carried a higher risk of testing positive compared with exposure to a patient source (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.72 to 6.04). CONCLUSION: Occupational exposures to coworker sources were not only more frequent but also associated with triple the risk of developing COVID-19 infection, compared with exposures to patient sources.

Durability analysis of the highly effective BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19.

COVID-19 vaccines are effective, but breakthrough infections have been increasingly reported. We conducted a test-negative case-control study to assess the durability of protection after full vaccination with BNT162b2 against polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-confirmed symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection, in a national medical practice from January 2021 through January 2022. We fit conditional logistic regression (CLR) models stratified on residential county and calendar time of testing to assess the association between time elapsed since vaccination and the odds of symptomatic infection or non-COVID-19 hospitalization (negative control), adjusted for several covariates. There were 5,985 symptomatic individuals with a positive test after full vaccination with BNT162b2 (cases) and 32,728 negative tests contributed by 27,753 symptomatic individuals after full vaccination (controls). The adjusted odds of symptomatic infection were higher 250 days after full vaccination versus at the date of full vaccination (Odds Ratio [OR]: 3.62, 95% CI: 2.52 to 5.20). The odds of infection were still lower 285 days after the first BNT162b2 dose as compared to 4 days after the first dose (OR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.37 to 0.67), when immune protection approximates the unvaccinated status. Low rates of COVID-19 associated hospitalization or death in this cohort precluded analyses of these severe outcomes. The odds of non-COVID-19 associated hospitalization (negative control) decreased with time since vaccination, suggesting a possible underestimation of waning protection by this approach due to confounding factors. In summary, BNT162b2 strongly protected against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection for at least 8 months after full vaccination, but the degree of protection waned significantly over this period.

COVID-19 Infections in Health Care Personnel by Source of Exposure and Correlation With Community Incidence.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the rate of household, community, occupational, and travel-related COVID-19 infections among health care personnel (HCP). METHODS: In a retrospective cohort study of 3694 HCP with COVID-19 infections from July 5 to December 19, 2020, we analyzed infection source data and rates, compared with local and state infection rates, and performed a correlation analysis. RESULTS: Household (27.1%) and community (15.6%) exposures were the most common sources of infection. Occupational exposures accounted for 3.55% of HCP infections. Unattributable infections (no known exposure source) accounted for 53.1% and correlated with community rather than occupational exposure ( R = 0.99 vs 0.78, P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infections in this large HCP cohort correlated closely with infection rates in the community. The low incidence of occupational infections supports the effectiveness of institutional infection prevention and control measures.

Disparities in COVID-19 vaccine uptake among health care workers.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 vaccine uptake by healthcare workers (HCWs) is critical to protect HCWs, the patients they care for, and the healthcare infrastructure. Our study aims to examine the actual COVID-19 vaccination rate among HCWs and identify risk factors associated with vaccine nonacceptance. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs at a large multi-site US academic medical center from 12/18/2020 through 05/04/2021. Comparisons between groups were performed using unpaired student t-test for continuous variables and the chi-square test for categorical variables. A logistic regression analysis was used to assess the associations between vaccine uptake and risk factor(s). RESULTS: Of the 65,270 HCWs included in our analysis, the overall vaccination rate was 78.6%. Male gender, older age, White and Asian race, and direct patient care were associated with higher vaccination rates (P <.0001). Significant differences were observed between different job categories. Physicians and advanced practice staff, and healthcare professionals were more likely to be vaccinated than nurses and support staff. CONCLUSIONS: Our data demonstrated higher initial vaccination rates among HCWs than the general population national average during the study period. We observed significant disparities among different high-risk HCWs groups, especially among different job categories, black HCWs and younger HCWs despite their high risk of contracting the infection. Interventions to address lower vaccination rate and vaccine hesitancy should be built with these disparities and differences in mind to create more targeted interventions.

Surveillance of Safety of 3 Doses of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination Using Electronic Health Records.

Importance: Recent reports on waning of COVID-19 vaccine-induced immunity have led to the approval and rollout of additional doses and booster vaccinations. Individuals at increased risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection are receiving additional vaccine doses in addition to the regimen that was tested in clinical trials. Risks and adverse event profiles associated with additional vaccine doses are currently not well understood. Objective: To evaluate the safety of third-dose vaccination with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was conducted using electronic health record (EHR) data from December 2020 to October 2021 from the multistate Mayo Clinic Enterprise. Participants included all 47 999 individuals receiving 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines within the study setting who met study inclusion criteria. Participants were divided into 2 cohorts by vaccine brand administered and served as their own control groups, with no comparison made between cohorts. Data were analyzed from September through November 2021. Exposures: Three doses of an FDA-authorized COVID-19 mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273. Main Outcomes and Measures: Vaccine-associated adverse events were assessed via EHR report. Adverse event risk was quantified using the percentage of study participants who reported the adverse event within 14 days after each vaccine dose and during a 14-day control period, immediately preceding the first vaccine dose. Results: Among 47 999 individuals who received 3-dose COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, 38 094 individuals (21 835 [57.3%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.4 [52.5-76.5] years) received BNT162b2 (79.4%) and 9905 individuals (5099 [51.5%] women; median [IQR] age, 67.7 [59.5-73.9] years) received mRNA-1273 (20.6%). Reporting of severe adverse events remained low after the third vaccine dose, with rates of pericarditis (0.01%; 95% CI, 0%-0.02%), anaphylaxis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), myocarditis (0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.01%), and cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (no individuals) consistent with results from earlier studies. Significantly more individuals reported low-severity adverse events after the third dose compared with after the second dose, including fatigue (2360 individuals [4.92%] vs 1665 individuals [3.47%]; P < .001), lymphadenopathy (1387 individuals [2.89%] vs 995 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), nausea (1259 individuals [2.62%] vs 979 individuals [2.04%]; P < .001), headache (1185 individuals [2.47%] vs 992 individuals [2.07%]; P < .001), arthralgia (1019 individuals [2.12%] vs 816 individuals [1.70%]; P < .001), myalgia (956 individuals [1.99%] vs 784 individuals [1.63%]; P < .001), diarrhea (817 individuals [1.70%] vs 595 individuals [1.24%]; P < .001), fever (533 individuals [1.11%] vs 391 individuals [0.81%]; P < .001), vomiting (528 individuals [1.10%] vs 385 individuals [0.80%]; P < .001), and chills (224 individuals [0.47%] vs 175 individuals [0.36%]; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that although third-dose vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased reporting of low-severity adverse events, risk of severe adverse events remained comparable with risk associated with the standard 2-dose regime. These findings suggest the safety of third vaccination doses in individuals who were eligible for booster vaccination at the time of this study.

Utility of Follow-up Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Antigen Tests After Acute Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection Among Healthcare Personnel.

We report the utility of rapid antigen tests (RAgT) in a cohort of US healthcare personnel with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection who met symptom criteria to return to work at day 5 or later of isolation. In total, 11.9% of initial RAgT were negative. RAgT can be helpful to guide return to work decisions.

Work Absence Following COVID-19 Vaccination in a Cohort of Healthcare Personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of work absence following receipt of COVID-19 vaccine in a cohort of healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: Short-term disability (STD) usage by HCP attributed to side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine was calculated for each vaccine manufacturer, job category, age group, and work region. Analysis was performed for the cohort of HCP during the initial vaccination campaign. RESULTS: 4.1% of COVID-19 vaccinations generated a STD claim for lost work due to side effects, with increased STD rates after dose 2 than dose 1 (7.4% and 0.9%, respectively). Rates were higher for younger HCP and allied health staff. CONCLUSIONS: While side effects from mRNA vaccine dose 2 resulted in more work absence, statistically significant geographic differences in STD suggest cultural and staffing factors may impact HCP to utilize STD following vaccination.

Occupational exposure to severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and risk of infection among healthcare personnel.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the rate and factors associated with healthcare personnel (HCP) testing positive for severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) after an occupational exposure. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Academic medical center with sites in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, and Florida. PARTICIPANTS: HCP with a high or medium risk occupational exposure to a patient or other HCP with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We reviewed the records of HCP with significant occupational exposures from March 20, 2020, through December 31, 2020. We then performed regression analysis to assess the impact of demographic and occupational variables to assess their impact on the likelihood of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2. RESULTS: In total, 2,253 confirmed occupational exposures occurred during the study period. Employees were the source for 57.1% of exposures. Overall, 101 HCP (4.5%) tested positive in the postexposure period. Of these, 80 had employee sources of exposure and 21 had patient sources of exposure. The postexposure infection rate was 6.2% when employees were the source, compared to 2.2% with patient sources. In a multivariate analysis, occupational exposure from an employee source had a higher risk of testing positive compared to a patient source (odds ratio [OR], 3.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.72-6.04). Sex, age, high-risk exposure, and HCP role were not associated with an increased risk of testing positive. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of acquiring coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) following a significant occupational exposure has remained relatively low, even in the prevaccination era. Exposure to an infectious coworker carries a higher risk than exposure to a patient. Continued vigilance and precautions remain necessary in healthcare settings.